GR L 23178; (May, 1974) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-23178. May 28, 1974.
EULOGIO DATU, ET AL., petitioners, vs. LADISLAO PASICOLAN, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, fishermen from Minalin, Pampanga, held an annual license to fish using “biacus” nets in specific municipal waters until December 31, 1963, with a right to renew for 1964. The Municipal Council of Minalin enacted Resolution No. 99, s. 1963, which withdrew the waters from public access and mandated that fishing privileges be granted exclusively to the highest bidder at a public auction. The petitioners demanded that the resolution not be enforced, arguing it was ultra vires, and sought a renewal of their license at the previous rate. When their demands were rejected, they filed a complaint in the Court of First Instance of Pampanga, which granted a writ of preliminary injunction to stop the scheduled public auction.
The respondents, the Municipal Council and Municipal Treasurer, moved to dissolve the injunction. The respondent judge granted the motion, dissolving the writ upon the posting of a P5,000 counterbond. The petitioners then filed this petition for certiorari and prohibition to nullify the orders dissolving the injunction. The respondents countered that the petitioners’ previous grant was for fish corrals, not “biacus” nets, and that Resolution No. 99 was a valid exercise of municipal authority.
ISSUE
Whether the petition for certiorari and prohibition has been rendered moot and academic.
RULING
Yes, the case is moot and academic. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. The core legal principle applied is that courts will not adjudicate moot cases—those where a determination would have no practical legal effect because the controversy has ceased to exist. The petitioners’ primary prayer in the lower court was for the renewal of their fishing license for the year 1964. By the time the Supreme Court resolved the petition in 1974, the year 1964 had long expired. Consequently, any judicial ruling on the validity of the municipal resolution or the orders dissolving the injunction would be ineffectual, as it could no longer grant the substantive relief originally sought by the petitioners. The Court noted the parties’ failure to prosecute the case actively and their non-compliance with a show-cause order, further indicating the loss of an actual, ongoing controversy. Therefore, the petition was dismissed for being moot.